JUDGE (n.) A law student who marks his own papers - H.L. Mencken

"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."
- Abraham Lincoln

The Judge files contain background factual data on judges, as well as analysis which is more subjective in nature. Where analysis and opinion are provided, they are the considered and sole opinion of the editor. Information and news tips on judges can be sent to Spartan News Limited through various means listed on the 'Contact Us' page. Information may be submitted anonymously but it would be very helpful if reference or source backgroundcan besupplied along with information.




2 August 2012
The absence of an independent bar or arm's length appellate courts in New Zealand allow the Supreme Court to increasingly make it up as it goes. SEE THE LATEST CASE WHICH HAS SURFACED


31 July 2012
The New Zealand Supreme Court has added a further element of unpredictability with the appointment of Susan Glazebrook by Attorney General Chris Finlayson. Glazebrook was one of the more emotional and erratic Court of Appeal judges but was also seen generally to be one of the morerespectful of human rights.

High Court Justice Christine French was appointed to the Court of Appeal to filltheslot.


15 March 2010
Former Deputy Judge of the Independent Police Complaints Authority Michael Lance QC will face trial in the North Shore District Court on 24 March 2010 for willful vandalism. As first reported on kiwisfirst a year ago, Lance was witnessed "keying" the car of businessman Richard Cummins in front of the Judge's Browns Bay apartment by café patrons across the street. Despite the trial being set for months, the half dozen witnesses were only subpoenaed this weekend.

Further investigation of Judge Lance after his arrest uncovered a disturbing history of criminal conduct. This included similar incidents of vandalism where the Judge was questioned but never charged, as well as the Judge throwing a trial in Rotorua of a lawyer charged with fraud and blackmail years earlier. That lawyer, caught on tape trying to blackmail the detective prosecuting his drug-dealing client, turned out to be the business partner of the Judge's son Simon. Without disclosing the relationship, Lance had himself appointed trial judge and travelled down from Auckland to preside. In a brazen display of power, Lance J found the lawyer not guilty and then publicly castigated the police for prosecuting the lawyer. The lawyer cannot be named because Judge Lance additionally gave him name suppression.

Judge Lance's perversion of the course of justice in the criminal trial of his son's law partner occurred when Supreme Court Judge John McGrath was Solicitor General and Police Complaints Authority Judge Lowell Goddard was Deputy Solicitor General. Police hierarchy reported and detailed the corruption to the Solicitor General and deputy, but McGrath and Goddardconcealed the evidence of Lance's criminal offending from the bench and dismissively stated at the time that prosecution of Judge Lance was "not in the public interest".At least one high ranking Police inspector quit out of disillusionment. The important news story was never reported by the NZ media.

Subsequent Official Information Act requests for this evidence held by the Crown Law office have been stonewalled by claims the evidence is protected by legal privilege. Appallingly, both Justice McGrath and Justice Goddard gave ringing endorsements to Judge Lance's subsequent promotion to Judge of the Independent Police Complaints Authority. Judge Lance wasted no time claiming victory over the Police officials who had complained about his criminal conduct to no avail years earlier.

Years after McGrath and Goddard's cover-up of Judge Lance's criminal misconduct on the bench, Judge Lance successfully sued a radio talkbalk host Mark Bennett for defamation after the host called the Judge "idiotic".

Judge Michael Lance is currently retired. He is aggressively defending the charge but does not want a jury trial. The trial should prove interesting even if the New Zealand media are afraid to report it. BACK TO FRONT PAGE


15 September 2009
New Zealand Solicitor General David Collins is currently defending at least three unrelated complaints to the New Zealand Law Society for alleged legal misconduct. One is by kiwisfirst editor Vince Siemer, in relation to representations by Mr Collins to the Auckland High Court in January 2008. In brief, that complaint alleges Collins knowingly made false claims to initiate a contempt action that the www.kiwisfirst.comwebsite was in breach of an interim injunction, despite his office conceding that the content was "fully compliant" with the injunction terms. The complaint also alleges that he deliberately misled Parliament by misrepresenting to the Justice and Electoral Select Committee in August 2007 that the matter was before the Courts - and thereby off limits from a Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr Collins has responded by letter dated 3 September 2009 to Secretary of National Standards Committee Mary Ollivier that he considers he is the victim of a conspiracy by Mr Siemer and the other complainants. Presumably, on this basis, he refused to address the substance of the complaint and supporting evidence in the form of a 6 September 2007 email indicating his office agreed months before that the website was not in breach the injunction.Ironically Mr Collins used his response to threaten the Law Society with prosecution for contempt of Parliament if heconsidered the Law Society was"to collaterally challenge" the Select Committee's decision founded on what Speaker of the House Lockwood Smith hadsubsequently determined"may not have been correct".Dr Smith'sconclusion was reached before he became aware of the documentary evidence thatDavid Collins waspersonally involved in the deception of the Committee.

Collins elected to take a global position in his reply. He appended a copy of the resultant High Court Judgment ordering Siemer to six months prison for failing to "unconditionally close down" this website as defence that his actions in seeking Mr Siemer's imprison were appropriate. back to front page


27 August 2007
Late in July2007 it wasrevealed that Auckland High Court Justice Paul Heath ruled last December - more than a year after Robert Fardell QC (right) fell to his death from the 15 metre high Takapuna Head cliffs into the rocky surf at high tide - that the Auckland Coroner's findings and the evidence into the bizarre circumstances of Fardell's death would be largely suppressed. This Court ruling by Heath J followed prominent barrister Harry Waalken QC obtaining a restraining orderin July 2006 preventing the Coroner from releasing his written report while the family sought a judicial review designed to censure and obscure the Coroner's findings. Unfortunately for Waalken, the cat had already been let out of the bagat a special inquest conducted at the Auckland Coroner's Court in June 2006. This was when Auckland Coroner Dr. Murray Jamieson issued an oral report stating Mr. Fardell died from drowning, with the post-mortem examination revealingdrowning was precipitated by massive injuries consistent with afall immediately prior.

With foul play and suicide the likely scenarios facingpolice officers responding to report of a lifeless body on the rocks, foul play must reasonably beruled outsimply on the response of police that day finding a middle-age man unexpectedly dead. What is known is that the police and ambulance response to the call of a bodyfound6:30 pm11 December 2005 as the tide receded was unusually brief for an untimely and, presumably, uncertain cause of death. Although Mr. Fardell was 52 years old and in good health at the time he died, neither cordoning of the scene nor forensic analysis in-situ was apparently conducted. The ambulance crew left shortly after inspecting the top of the cliff above where the body was found. Moreover, as Fardell was an extremelyheavy-set man who additionally had to breach a fence to reach the edge of the cliff, it is highly unlikely that his fall could have been an accident ormurder in this areaactive with people enjoying the early summer weekend.

Nonetheless,Barrister Waalken vehemently pressed the Coroner that suicide was not afinding the Coroner could legally make - or even mention. While the Coroner seemed ultimately prepared to delicately acquiesce to Waalken's demands,Waalken's subsequent legal motions that the Coroner permanently seal the evidence and his finding were rejected outright by the Coroner as incompatible with the fundamental precept of transparent proceedings and justice. It is this ruling by the Coroner that has now been overturned by Auckland High Court Justice Heath.

There has been some speculation, unproven, that Mr. Fardell had a life insurance policy, the death benefit from which may have been lost if the Coroner's findings indicated suicide. However, it is more likely for reasons that will become apparent deeper in this story that, given the tremendous media exposure to the death, concerns were heightened within the judiciary that allowing the circumstances of the death to be made public would only increase the public's curiosity as to what drove Fardell to such self-destruction. It was anticipated that attention into the deceased's sordid personal and professional life would then raise legitimate and troubling questions as to how such a person could reach the pinnacle of the legal profession and be next in line for a judicial appointment while those in authority had turned a blind eye to numerous disturbing complaints concerning his professional conduct for several years leading up to his death.

In the days immediately following his death, the New Zealand Herald ran front page stories claiming that Mr. Fardell died of a heart attack while swimming - irresponsible news reportingeasily dispelled byfacts that were immediately available to any reporter interested in accuracy. Other than the location of the body on rocks hundreds of meters from the nearest beach, Mr. Fardell was not dressed for a swim as he walked away from his house for the last time. The inquest officer assigned to the case said the body was found with shorts and no shoes but that his experience was "articles of clothing quickly get separated from the bodyin the water". And as any viewer of CSI can tell you, there are definitive forensic tests to quickly determine whether someone has suffered a fatal heart attack.

The inquest officer, Paul Herman of the Takapuna Police, immediately realized that he was in over his head on this investigation. The last person to talk to the deceased was Chris Morris, son of (now retired) High Court judge David Morris. Chris Morris admitted to Herman that he had come to Fardell's home this Sunday afternoon to discuss pending legal matters with the deceased but declined to grant a formal interview or provide further detail. Same with the widow. Also, as the press was widely reporting that ten High Court judges had attended the funeral, the estate hired Barrister Harry Waalken QC, widely regarded as a legal Houdini on medical cases, to advance the family's position on the death - and stymie the investigation. Faced with such powerful stonewalling Mr. Herman did not need to be a genius to identify that careers are made or lost on how someone might handle himself inan investigation where a litany of prominent lawyers and judges were not only expressing a keen interest in his approach to the investigation but were simultaneously speaking out effusively in the press about what a great man of integrity Mr. Fardell was.

Mr. Fardell undoubtedly had many fine qualities, but integrity was not one of them. It didn't help that Mr. Herman quite quickly uncovered this darker side to the man. Herman casually revealed to a private investigator early in his investigation that an Asian gang Fardell had a falling out with were phoning him in an attempt to gain information. Within a month Herman was also informed that Fardell was being sued in the Auckland High Court for deceptive practices by former clients Paragon Oil Systems Limited and Vince and Jane Siemer, and that an application detailing allegations that Fardell three times perjured himself had been filed and served less than two weeks before his death. Adding insult to a potentially career-killing injury for Fardell was the fact that Hugh Williams, a judge whom Fardell considered dim-witted and vain and, hence, was an irresistible butt of his jokes, was, as judge in the case, going out of his way to unduly protect Fardell. Fardell was a proud man whose career and legitimate standing among his peers meant everything to him. This graft from an unlikely ally whom he had been all too quick to dismiss as unprofessional was a tremendous blow to his ego as much as an inescapable symbol of poetic justice.

Yet another former client, New Zealand inventor Hugh Price, was also embroiled in a legal battle against Fardell before he died. Mr. Price had years earlier obtained a ruling from the Lay Observer that overruled the Law Society's dismissal of a formal complaint he had lodged against Mr. Fardell for deceptive practices and seeming incompetence. Despite this ruling of the Lay Observer, the Law Society refused to act on the complaint. Now, in December 2005, Mr. Price was again challenging Fardell in a current case for acting in a conflict of interest capacity.

Topping off all this was Fardell's close personal and business relationship with powerful Auckland insolvency practitioner Michael Stiassny, a relationship he would come to ruefully regret in the weeks before his death This was due in large part to (what Fardell was obviously convinced to be) an intentional release of information by his former friend that helped expose Fardell's legal scams. This information put Fardell's career at risk in addition to severely undermining his credibility. Whether this was the straw in the mountain of straw that broke the camel's back is difficult to say. However, given the significant betrayal by someone he had put so much trust in, it is not difficult to surmise this weighed heavily on Fardell as he solemnly walked to the precipice this otherwise sunny Sunday. Ironically, as Stiassny was trustee of the Fardell family trust (Delfar Holdings Limited) at the time of his death Fardell could not escape his clutches even in death.

In this pressure cooker where the powerful legal community's obituary contrasted so sharply with the unfolding facts of the man's real life, Officer Herman did the only thing he considered safe under the circumstances - he went to ground. As the Coroner's representative, Officer Herman wasresponsible for publicizing the public inquest. Despite the tremendous number of contacts he had received from media and financially interested parties, Officer Herman informed only the widow and Harry Waalken QC of the public inquest that he had hastily convened barely 2 months after the death.

Officer Herman would arrogantly respond later to those who felt slighted by his subterfuge regarding the public inquest that he was under no obligation to inform interested parties of the date or setting. This was simply untrue. The Coroner's Act 1988 specifically required him to notify in advance parties who may have an interest in the inquest. In the winter of 2006 Judge Borrin issued a ruling on behalf of the Police Complaints Authority of New Zealand stating Herman was derelict in his obligations under the Act. The Coroner had earlier been compelled to conduct a special inquest due to Herman's railroading of the public one.

The year 2006 saw significant changes in law for the Coroner's Office. The 1988 Act was repealed in favour of the Coroner's Act 2006, which was passed into law in August 2006, and the establishment of the Coronial Services of New Zealand was formed on 1 July 2007. Perhaps this chaos explains why the Coroner - having a year earlier been ready to issue his written inquest findings before a cease and desist order of the Court prevented him from doing so - released his report on 20 July 2007, seven months after Judge Heath finally gave him the approval to do so - sans the evidence and guts of the report.Perhaps the Coroner's delay was a demonstration of conscious indignation at the Court imposed coverup.

So it was that what started as a whitewash intended to be quickly disposed of in record time was eventually whitewashed by judicial order more than a year and a half after the fact. And when one reads the Coroner's brief final report, it is obvious that Mr. Waalken earned his substantial fees on this one. In legal speak, lawyers deceive by omission. This is obvious in this case when one reads the Coroner's two page report. This reporter's favorite line from that report is "No evidence was located to suggest that Mr. Fardell harboured any intention to commit suicide. Indeed, his work on forthcoming cases suggested to the contrary". It is as perverse as it is ironic that the Coroner could not write massive injuries from a fall directly contributed to the drowning but was encouraged to get into the highly speculative (let alone non-medical) realm of saying busy people do not have time to commit suicide. Read Coroner's censured report.

In obvious double-talk the new Coronial Services website states on its' front page, "The (new) Act was designed to enhance public confidence in the integrity and independence of the coronial system." All too sadly, the net result has proven the opposite true. BACK TO FRONT PAGE


11 September 2007
In a ruling handed down by Auckland District Court Justice GV Hubble today, the Judge recognized the Mayor as 'occupier' of 'the whole of the Council Chambers and its buildings' for the intent and purpose of the Trespass Act 1980. This means the Mayor has the absolute right in law, according to Judge Hubble, to order people removed from city buildings whose presencetheMayor decides to be objectional or disruptive - or if he has good reason to believethey might become so - so long as he does not act'capriciously' in doing so.

Judge Hubble's rulingfound community activist Penny Bright guilty of crimimal trespass and discharged her without sentence, saying that she was well meaning and had suffered enough. The case stems from a 23 November 2006 Council Meeting called under urgency to consider a new waterfront stadium in Auckland.Hubbard had denied Ms. Bright speaking rights at the meeting.Ms. Bright demonstrated her displeasure with the Mayor's refusal by displaying a 1 by 1.5 metre banner in the public gallery that read "Mayor Hubbard's DICKtatorship is a CEREAL matter - Don't Buy it". TheMayor demanded she put thebanner awaybut Ms. Bright refused;this refusal prompting the Mayor to temporarily adjourn the meeting while he summoned Police. By the time Police camethe banner was gone but, when Ms. Brightrefused to leave the meeting, the Mayor had her arrested for trespassing.The stadium proposal pushed by Hubbard eventually failed. The case of criminal trespass against Ms. Bright was pursued by the Crown at the Mayor's urging.

The mild-mannered Hubble appeared reticient in issuing his judgment. His decision ran contrary to three previous District Court rulings that had favoured Ms. Bright in similar circumstances. Still Hubble remarkably praised Ms. Bright and, in response to Ms. Bright submissions ahead of the sentencing, said he agreed with all the points she made. The difference this time, according to the Judge, was the Mayor found the banner justifiably objectionable. The Judge agreed.

With his judgment today Hubble also strayed further than previous District Court judges in ruling the Mayor was the rightful 'occupier' of the City building and, as such, was within his right to demand people being disruptive or guilty of objectionable conduct be cited for criminal trespass if they failed to leave when ordered to do so. Paradoxically the Judge recognized the public's right to access public buildings and attend public meetings. He therefore qualified his judgment by stating the Mayor, as occupier, had this right "provided that occupier is not acting capriciously or on the basis of racial or other prejudice".MayorHubbard's actions, which included refusing Ms. Bright speaking rights on a number of previous and subsequent occasions, were apparently not deemed prejudicial by Judge Hubbledue to His Honour's failure to mention this evidence in his judgment. The Judge also did not seem tomind that neither the Police constable nor Auckland Council Service's Manager Peter Burdencould recall whether they had specifically issued a trespass warning to Ms. Bright before arresting her.The case included prosecution submissions and defense submissions

Given the stigma of a criminal conviction, Ms. Bright said she is determined to appeal Judge Hubble's decision. Back to front page

New Zealand Judge files

Information on New Zealand Judges compiled from public and private sources, including all information submitted by the judges themselves

Justice ARNOLD, Terence Hugh * Terrence Arnold J *

Professional Data: 2010 JudgeSurvey Score (1-10) Ranking (out of 60)

Postion & Titles: QC
Judge of:

Supreme Court since June 2003,

Court of Appeal from 2006

Formerly Solicitor

Specializations and Professional Interests: Criminal Law
Professional Comments:

One Queen's Council perhaps said it best about Terrence Arnold; "What he lacks in legal detail, he makes up for in brevity."

Justice Terrence Arnold is known for making rulings which are, diplomatically speaking, a bit like the teacher settling a dispute in the school yard. You may not understand the reasons for it but you learn to accept it based upon the expressed certainty and finality.

TerrenceArnold J's past conduct would preclude his ability to become a judge in any other law-respecting country. Mr. Arnold is generally known in the NZ legal community to have engaged in criminal activity as Solicitor General serious enough that it could have landed him in prison (theprosecution was thrown out on the recommendation of Special Crown Counsel John Pike as "not in the public interest"). The charge was under the Crimes Act 1961, s117(..).

Arnold J's unfitness wasfurther demonstrated when heessentially appointed himself to the Court of Appeal bench, befuddling the only man who stood in his way, former Attorney General (and notable non-lawyer) Michael Cullen, shortly after Cullen's own political appointment to A-G in 2005. Arnold J's self-appointment to judge on New Zealand's highest court by right was fostered by his authority as Solicitor General to appoint judges, pushed by judges who unquestionably knew of the allegations, if not his guilt, and strong-armed by Jim Farmer QC who wrote an endorsement letter on behalf of the New Zealand Law Society (the lawyer's fraternity). All of this occurred secretly, away from the public.

Arnold'smisconductwas in not only concealing ex-culpatory evidence in the Te Rata (Berryman) Bridge collapse (Kenneth Richards wrongful death case) but also the promotion of false evidence at the same time.

Background / Education: Terrence Arnold J graduated from Victoria University (BA and LLM) and New York University (LLM). He taught criminal law at Victoria University in Wellington as well as at several Canadian universities, including Dalhousie University and the University of Calgary. He was a partner of Chapman Tripp Sheffield Young between 1985 and 1994. He became a barrister sole in 1994 and shortly thereafter, was appointed Queen's Counsel. He was Solicitor-General between 2000 and 2006. He was appointed a judge of the High Court and the Court of Appeal in May 2006. Political
Degrees: In school, it could be said that Terrence played well with others.
Admitted to the Bar: 1977
Company Involvements: Hides them very well. Ifyou are involved incommercial litigation before him, it might do well to hire a private investigator to explore any connections Judge Arnold may have with opposing parties.

Personal Data

Born: 1953 Sex: Male
Married: 19 Children:
Interesting Relationships and Coincidences: As Solicitor General before 2005,Terrence Arnold Jwas instrumental in withholding the 'Butcher Report' from evidence in the Berryman bridge disaster. This report revealed the Army's culpability in the faulty construction that caused the collapse of the bridge and the death of a local beekeeper. The Army instead submitted a sanitized report into evidence which expunged the relevant causations. As a result, the Army (government) has so fardodged responsibility. Justice Arnold was appointed to the Court of Appeal by himself shortly afterward in what is euphemistically described as a quid pro quo for a 'job well done' but, more accurately, is a result of .
Miscellaneous: Lawyers are taught to bend the truth but, in the case of Mr. Arnold, his close association with criminal elements in his legal practice is considered by many to have created in him a moral detachment from the law and a blurring of the line between right and wrong. Most who know the man have no illusion that his coveting of a judgeship has a high 'personal agenda' quotient. Where Terrence Arnold J's interests are concerned, he will always find a law to foster it, even if it requires him making 'facts' and law up. Whileaccepted behaviour for a lawyer, this is a particularly dangerous attribute for a Court of Appeal judge where litigants have no direct right of appeal to the newly formed New Zealand Supreme Court.

In response to repeated requests for a copy of the investigative report, Moodie says then Solicitor General Terrence Arnold told him that there was nothing ...
www.kiwisfirst.co.nz/index.asp?pageID=2145845331 - 49k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Judge Terence Hugh Arnold, Kiwis First - Judge Terrence Hugh ...
Let's be clear: Mr. Arnold is well known to have engaged in criminal activity as a lawyer serious enough that it should have landed him in prison. ...
www.kiwisfirst.co.nz/index.asp?PageID=2145845337 - 28k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
More results from www.kiwisfirst.co.nz

LawTalk 2004 Index
Farmer, Jim, QC, and Chris Darlow reject criticism of Terrence Arnold QC's appointment to judiciary, 666,1. Farnan, Bernadette, appointed Dunedin branch ...
www.nzls.org.nz/lawtalk/index2006.htm - 461k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Beehive - Appointment of Terence Arnold QC as Judge of the High ...
The Attorney-General, the Hon Dr Michael Cullen, announced today the appointment of Terence Arnold QC as a Judge of the High Court and Court of Appeal. ...
www.beehive.govt.nz/release/appointment+terence+arnold+qc+judge+high+court+and+court+appeal - 15k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Metro Water Limited - Auckland City Council
Collins' predecessor Terrence Arnold was appointed as a Court of Appeal judge after being caught concealing material evidence in the Berryman Bridge ...
www.stiassny.org/Institute_of_Chartered_Accountants.html - 49k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Departmental chief executives
Crown Law Office. Chief Executive and Solicitor-General Mr Terence Arnold, QC. Previous Previous | Next Next. Back to top ...
www.ssc.govt.nz/display/document.asp?docid=4514&pageno=7 - 11k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
Terence Arnold. My task is to outline the current judicial appointments process and to indicate what the. Government has decided to do following the report ...
www.crownlaw.govt.nz/uploads/JudicialAppointments.PDF - Similar pages - Note this

WYSIWYG NEWS, 5 June, 2005
Solicitor-General Terrence Arnold says there are important elements of the judges' reasoning which were in error. He says Corrections' use of the ...
wysiwygnews.com/archives/news/2005-June/000087.html - 47k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Scoop: Letter to Murray McCully re: Terence Arnold
I have just read the piece that you have posted on your website expressing strong and critical views about the performance of Terence Arnold during his ...
www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0605/S00070.htm - 54k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Defence bosses accused of intimidation | NATIONAL | NEWS | tvnz.co.nz
The Solicitor General Terrence Arnold is expected to rule next week on whether a contempt of court has resulted from the letters written to the two ...
tvnz.co.nz/view/news_budget_story_skin/474197 - 68k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

The Kiwis First forum, the kiwisfirst.co.nz website, pages, content and any Internet mirror thereof are the works of SPARTAN NEWS LIMITED, a New Zealand Registered News Media Company. Copyright Notice & Disclaimer.